IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar.

Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer.
If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email.
NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

If this was a trick, RemieV might get what she's after, if it's the latter, it won't be possible to find out.

From what I have seen, and even from what RemieV has said, this is not something typical of a Edward performance. So I would doubt that Edward is using some trick, especially some complicated trick. If Edward often got this type of solid result, then I might suspect he was using stooges or investigators or some other type of trick. But he doesn’t.

Edward either:

1. Got a nod and a shake to clue him in that the guy was Joshua and the people at the table didn’t think so.

2. Made a lucky guess.

3. Somehow had information about Joshua.

Because Edward’s act is as a cold reader, I would most suspect that he got some good body language from the people at the table that his guess that the guy was Joshua was wrong and he went with it and ended up right. There is some possibility that Edward just happened to get some information about Joshua and used it in his act. I think it is least likely that Edward had some elaborate trick set up, because that isn’t his act.

Edward’s shtick is cold reading. It is possible that in this case he did a hot read or some trick. There are many ways such a thing could be done. But if Edward ever does that, he does it very rarely which means it would be very difficult to catch him at it.

__________________Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau

MINION: "I want you to engage one - just any one - customer in conversation. Just get his or her name and where they're from, maybe a few details. Don't be obvious about it, just make it a casual conversation. I'll return here for the info in a couple of days and give you 25 bucks and I'll give you 25 right now. You in?

BOC: "That's it?"

MINION: "That's it."

BOC: "Sure, I can do that, but listen - I have this little digital voice recorder here. You make it a hundred bucks and I'll record the conversation and give you the tape. Deal?"

MINION: "Deal. And if this goes well, and no-one gets to hear of it, it could become a regular thing. I'll be back in a couple of days"

BOC: "Sweet. Hey, Why do you want this? Who do you work for?"

MINION: "For a hundred bucks or more, do you really care?"

BOC: (laughs) "No man, I don't need to know or care. See ya in a couple of days"

__________________"You're entitled to your opinion; you're just not entitled to have it taken seriously when you can offer no evidence to support it." - Garrison

MINION: "I want you to engage one - just any one - customer in conversation. Just get his or her name and where they're from, maybe a few details. Don't be obvious about it, just make it a casual conversation. I'll return here for the info in a couple of days and give you 25 bucks and I'll give you 25 right now. You in?

BOC: "That's it?"

MINION: "That's it."

BOC: "Sure, I can do that, but listen - I have this little digital voice recorder here. You make it a hundred bucks and I'll record the conversation and give you the tape. Deal?"

MINION: "Deal. And if this goes well, and no-one gets to hear of it, it could become a regular thing. I'll be back in a couple of days"

BOC: "Sweet. Hey, Why do you want this? Who do you work for?"

MINION: "For a hundred bucks or more, do you really care?"

BOC: (laughs) "No man, I don't need to know or care. See ya in a couple of days"

It doesn't work this way. You would get caught so fast if you did this. He has a subtle method(s).

Late to the thread and dredging up a post from several pages back, I know. Sorry. Anyway:

Originally Posted by RemieV

I'm looking to catch Edward in the act

To what end? I mean, he's been "caught in the act" any number of times already and it doesn't seem to have done him any harm. He got caught blatantly hot-reading on Dateline NBC over ten years ago, for crying out loud.

Late to the thread and dredging up a post from several pages back, I know. Sorry. Anyway:

To what end? I mean, he's been "caught in the act" any number of times already and it doesn't seem to have done him any harm. He got caught blatantly hot-reading on Dateline NBC over ten years ago, for crying out loud.

Details or link to info?

__________________Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
My post are all (IMO) unless stated otherwise.

So on what kind of forums could John Edward's secrets be busted, so that people will not have to fall victim to his woopottery? Personally, I believe in exhaustive exposure of all extant frauds and scams. "Psychics" who prey upon people's grief to get money by making them believe that their faked "abilities" are a reality qualify as "frauds and scams" in my book, and nasty, devastating ones at that. Someone should blow the lid on Sylvia Browne's bag of tricks, too, even if this particular forum isn't the right place. Has someone already done that for that latter case? I've seen quite a lot of despising talk about her here.

Anyways, I think that if someone is claiming to have "psychic" powers, they probably don't. If they are making a killing off that claim, then they REALLY probably don't.

Last edited by mike3; 15th January 2011 at 02:18 AM.
Reason: wrote "John Edwards" like the politician!

And don't let your belief become "pathological", either. Did you test him to rigorous standards to determine this or did you just swallow his claim because it looked good? There are tons and tons of very false things that look really good! How do you know this is not one of them?

Not only that, but the box office is run by the casino, not by the staff of the show. It is extraordinarily unlikely that, even if Edward's team asked, the casino would cough up a list of attendees.

You've mentioned this point more than once (and, given that he paid cash, it may be irrelevant to this case, if the the information wasn't there to be shared in the first place), but is there really such a secure firewall between casino and performer? The reason I ask is that in my admittedly very limited experience of Vegas shows, information that was presumably from the box office did appear to be shared. At the Blue Man Group show, before the show started, the display at the front of the stage welcomed various audience members, with information about them. (From the cheers from various parts of the theatre, they were genuine names of people attending. One of them was even a forum member I was there with, but I didn't think to ask him if he knew how they got the information (I wasn't sitting with him).) I don't know if this contradicts what you were saying, but it seems that there may be at least some flow of information from the box office.

__________________The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

For the love of all things holy - my point was not that the trick was amazing, but that it was the only reading he gave that had a solid, verifiable FACT within it, hence my use of it as an example.

So, the one fact was the name 'Joshua', and that Edwards appeared to point to the table he was on? I think the part about him having introduced himself as 'Liam' has been explained, with Edwards picking up on the reaction of the people at the table. (On my first reading of the OP, I (like others) had thought that Edwards had come up with the name 'Liam' too, as well as 'Joshua', which really would have taken some explaining.)

I see two possibilities; either someone found the name out and passed it on (maybe his wife was with him when he bought the ticket, and called him 'Joshua' at the time, and that information was picked up by someone), or it was a lucky hit, which seems significant to you because you happened to have spoken to him yourself. (How many shows have you been to? How many times do the psychics throw out a name, with a point in vague direction, without getting a hit?) Is it possible there was someone else at that table or an adjacent one who had somehow given away the name 'Joshua', but Liam reacted first? (And in that case, the reaction of the 'real' Joshua might have made it even more obvious to Edwards that a different name had been used by Liam.)

__________________The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

Forgive me if this idea is buried somewhere in 9 pages. I haven't read them all.

Let's assume that the guy wasn't a plant or shill.

RemieV, my WAG is that something happened that you ignored, but a good magician -- someone of Randi's caliber -- would have picked up on. It's common for an average person to report a trick as he/she interpreted it, but not how it actually happened. Somewhere in your mind is an assumption that wouldn't be supported if we could access a video of your experience.

As a very simple example, someone once told me they saw a girl in a box who turned her head around twice while her body didn't move. How could that happen? Impossible!

Did he actually see her head turn around? Of course not. She was largely wedged in a box and partly covered up. When I examined the video, it was obvious to me that the girl turned her head a little, then the box covered the action, then the back of her head was visible, still turning, then her head came around to the front and she had a crosseyed expression.

The assumption made by the viewer was that the part that looked like the back of her head was the back of her head. Not so. It was probably a wig bolted to the box.

But the viewer didn't say, "I saw a wig where her head should be," but "I saw the back of her head." See how a logical observation can lead to the wrong conclusion?

Sorry, I honestly hadn't looked at this thread since the last time I posted in it. Someone PM'd me asking if I was going to update with the transcript and whatnot. Really, I don't have time anymore, firstly because I just got a new job, and secondly because I was taking hours to write responses to things that had already been discussed to death, and people just hadn't read the nine pages to realize that. This is the response I gave to the PM:

I have not returned to that thread since having the realization that, rather than helping me figure out the methodology, everyone is asking for evidence of things I already know. Transcribing the audio of the recording would, therefore, be a MASSIVE waste of time, and frankly, I have a job and a life. I'm sick of defending myself as a skeptic.

And I know - that sounds exactly like something a believer would say in response to demands for evidence. But here's how it's going from my perspective.

Me: Hey! My grandmother is turning eighty, and I'm wondering what to get her for her birthday.

Half the people: Suggestion, suggestion, suggestion.

The other half of the people: She's turning eighty? How do you know?

Me: Well, she was born in such and such year, but that's not really the point.

The same people again: Well, clearly, if we're going to suggest gifts, you have to prove she's really eighty.

Me: Whether or not she's really eighty doesn't alter what I'm doing.

The same people again: Have you actually SEEN her birth certificate?

Me: Yes, I've seen it. So, what do I get her?

The same people again: Well, you're going to need to scan in her birth certificate before we can suggest anything.

Me: ???

My question was NEVER whether or not John Edward was psychic. By the time I posted the OP, I had already determined that he was either warm or hot reading. The question was HOW he was doing it, not whether or not he was. Half the people in the thread gave me suggestions for how he might've warm or hot read, and I have paid attention to those suggestions, and the next time I go to the show, I will have narrowed down that suggestion pool to the ones I find the most likely. Any other discussion, frankly, has nothing to do with what I was asking, and is taking far too much time to address.

I have not returned to that thread since having the realization that, rather than helping me figure out the methodology, everyone is asking for evidence of things I already know. Transcribing the audio of the recording would, therefore, be a MASSIVE waste of time, and frankly, I have a job and a life. I'm sick of defending myself as a skeptic.

Right, but we were really only asking you to clarify one thing:

Quote:

So Liam stood up. One of the ushers brought him a microphone so that he could communicate with Edward. Edward again said that he had gotten the name 'Joshua', and then said that there was something weird about it, because he had the sensation that the name was LIAM's. Then Edward paused for a moment. Liam had not said anything at this time.

And it may very well be that you already know and that there is nothing more you can learn from this thread, but that still leave us wondering what happened. And we want clarification because, like you, we are fascinated to know what really went on.

~~ Paul

__________________Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz

Sorry, I honestly hadn't looked at this thread since the last time I posted in it. Someone PM'd me asking if I was going to update with the transcript and whatnot. Really, I don't have time anymore, firstly because I just got a new job, and secondly because I was taking hours to write responses to things that had already been discussed to death, and people just hadn't read the nine pages to realize that. This is the response I gave to the PM:

I have not returned to that thread since having the realization that, rather than helping me figure out the methodology, everyone is asking for evidence of things I already know. Transcribing the audio of the recording would, therefore, be a MASSIVE waste of time, and frankly, I have a job and a life. I'm sick of defending myself as a skeptic.

And I know - that sounds exactly like something a believer would say in response to demands for evidence. But here's how it's going from my perspective.

Me: Hey! My grandmother is turning eighty, and I'm wondering what to get her for her birthday.

Half the people: Suggestion, suggestion, suggestion.

The other half of the people: She's turning eighty? How do you know?

Me: Well, she was born in such and such year, but that's not really the point.

The same people again: Well, clearly, if we're going to suggest gifts, you have to prove she's really eighty.

Me: Whether or not she's really eighty doesn't alter what I'm doing.

The same people again: Have you actually SEEN her birth certificate?

Me: Yes, I've seen it. So, what do I get her?

The same people again: Well, you're going to need to scan in her birth certificate before we can suggest anything.

Me: ???

My question was NEVER whether or not John Edward was psychic. By the time I posted the OP, I had already determined that he was either warm or hot reading. The question was HOW he was doing it, not whether or not he was. Half the people in the thread gave me suggestions for how he might've warm or hot read, and I have paid attention to those suggestions, and the next time I go to the show, I will have narrowed down that suggestion pool to the ones I find the most likely. Any other discussion, frankly, has nothing to do with what I was asking, and is taking far too much time to address.

Sorry if that's not an interesting enough answer.

-- Remie

Oh dear, that sadly does read to me as a “believerish” copout. Had expected/hoped for something better from someone with RemieV’s sceptical background and experience.

__________________Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
My post are all (IMO) unless stated otherwise.

I don't think it's a believerish copout, but it does leave us hanging.

~~ Paul

Why I believe it’s a “believerish copout" . . .

“rather than helping me figure out the methodology”
How can we help to figure out the methodology when we only have RemieV’s memory account of the events? She doesn’t even trust the veracity of this essentially anecdotal account of events herself (see post #290). Providing only anecdotal evidence and expecting others to accept it, and not providing claimed credible evidence, is “believerish”.

“everyone is asking for evidence of things I already know.”
But the point is “everyone” doesn’t know these things. Providing only anecdotal evidence and expecting others to accept it is “believerish”.

“Transcribing the audio of the recording would, therefore, be a MASSIVE waste of time.”
She was only requested to provide a relatively small part of the recording not the whole thing. Wouldn’t require a MASSIVE amount of effort or time and to claim it would is “believerish”.

“I have a job and a life”
Given most people on this forum have a job and a life to use this as some form of excuse is “believerish”. Especially coming from the person that started the thread.

“I'm sick of defending myself as a skeptic”
Then stop making comments that don’t reflect that you are a sceptic. Example - “By the time I posted the OP, I had already determined that he was either warm or hot reading.” A sceptic with your experience and knowledge should have “determined” WELL prior to posting the OP that Edward, Oliver and ALL people that claim to have psychic abilities are either cold, warm or hot reading. On what credible grounds is any other scenario possible enough to warrant sceptical consideration?

“And I know - that sounds exactly like something a believer would say“.”
Yep.

“in response to demands for evidence”
Claiming requests for evidence are “demands for evidence” is “believerish”.

“But here's how it's going from my perspective . . .”
Requesting an account of the actual event directly from a recording isn’t in any way related to the ridiculous scenario given. To even suggest it’s similar is “believerish”.

Interpreting requests for credible information as being personal attacks is “believerish”.

Yep, leaves us hanging like any claims unsupported by credible evidence do.

__________________Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
My post are all (IMO) unless stated otherwise.

I have just come across this thread tonight.
Read the whole bloody thing.
And now up in the air like some of you others.
Ynot, RemieV's response at the end of this thread is a bit "believerish", but I don't think she is one, no evidence to say that though.
I think she is just fed up with the thread.
Maybe some of what she said earlier may be a bit inaccurate (not intentionally) and is now backpedaling, but no evidence on my part to say that either.
Unless we have a much better recording of the nights entertainment we will never know.

I have just come across this thread tonight.
Read the whole bloody thing.
And now up in the air like some of you others.
Ynot, RemieV's response at the end of this thread is a bit "believerish", but I don't think she is one, no evidence to say that though.
I think she is just fed up with the thread.
Maybe some of what she said earlier may be a bit inaccurate (not intentionally) and is now backpedaling, but no evidence on my part to say that either.
Unless we have a much better recording of the nights entertainment we will never know.

Saying a person is posting in a “believerish” manner isn‘t saying that person is a believer and I have no doubt that RemieV is as much a sceptic as you and I. I’m merely saying that I’m surprised and somewhat disappointed that such a committed, qualified and experienced sceptic as RemieV has posted in this thread in such a “believerish” manner. She should be fully aware of the sceptical nature of this forum and that members expect credible evidence to be presented when it exists. I’m only applying the same standards to RemieV that I would to a believer or any other member. I‘m sure if a believer had started this thread and posted as RemieV has they wouldn‘t have been treated so “kindly“ by some members.

__________________Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
My post are all (IMO) unless stated otherwise.

Sorry, I honestly hadn't looked at this thread since the last time I posted in it. Someone PM'd me asking if I was going to update with the transcript and whatnot. Really, I don't have time anymore, firstly because I just got a new job, and secondly because I was taking hours to write responses to things that had already been discussed to death, and people just hadn't read the nine pages to realize that. This is the response I gave to the PM:

I have not returned to that thread since having the realization that, rather than helping me figure out the methodology, everyone is asking for evidence of things I already know. Transcribing the audio of the recording would, therefore, be a MASSIVE waste of time, and frankly, I have a job and a life. I'm sick of defending myself as a skeptic.

And I know - that sounds exactly like something a believer would say in response to demands for evidence. But here's how it's going from my perspective.

Me: Hey! My grandmother is turning eighty, and I'm wondering what to get her for her birthday.

Half the people: Suggestion, suggestion, suggestion.

The other half of the people: She's turning eighty? How do you know?

Me: Well, she was born in such and such year, but that's not really the point.

The same people again: Well, clearly, if we're going to suggest gifts, you have to prove she's really eighty.

Me: Whether or not she's really eighty doesn't alter what I'm doing.

The same people again: Have you actually SEEN her birth certificate?

Me: Yes, I've seen it. So, what do I get her?

The same people again: Well, you're going to need to scan in her birth certificate before we can suggest anything.

Me: ???

My question was NEVER whether or not John Edward was psychic. By the time I posted the OP, I had already determined that he was either warm or hot reading. The question was HOW he was doing it, not whether or not he was. Half the people in the thread gave me suggestions for how he might've warm or hot read, and I have paid attention to those suggestions, and the next time I go to the show, I will have narrowed down that suggestion pool to the ones I find the most likely. Any other discussion, frankly, has nothing to do with what I was asking, and is taking far too much time to address.

Sorry if that's not an interesting enough answer.

-- Remie

Would you have titled such a thread "My grandmother - eighty or what?" If you had, would you not have expected such replies?

Despite the unfortunate thread title, you did not address significant, relevant questions to your original post. That left us all hanging very much in speculation. And such speculation and apparent willful neglect to provide reasonable, requested information naturally leads to questions of intent and motivation, especially considering the thread title.

I understand what you were trying to do with this thread, but the unwanted reactions you received seem justified.

__________________Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau

I had a similar experience to RemieV.
In 2009 I went to a psychic show.
It was for a Ezio De Angelis a Sydney Psychic. Who was seen in Australia's TV show "The One" search for Australia's most gifted psychic .
Anyway, he had a few readings that I could not work out how he got the information, apart from hot reading, which was the most rational explanation. He knew a lot of the people at the show, he also communicated with a lot on Facebook.
Below is a link to my humble blog on this. I was abused by one of the believers that went to the same show but I could not remember her reading. She commented on my blog.My blog on Ezio De Angelis.

And it may very well be that you already know and that there is nothing more you can learn from this thread, but that still leave us wondering what happened. And we want clarification because, like you, we are fascinated to know what really went on.

~~ Paul

Absolutely, most of us just want the answer to this one question.

RemieV has made more than 30 other posts in other threads in this forum alone since we asked - again - for clarification to this one simple question, the Liam/Joshua question. She doesn't have the time? How long would it take? 5 minutes?

Well, I'm disappointed as well. I asked RemieV if she were interested in hearing about my own experience at a John Edward seminar that I attended several years ago, and she told me to go ahead, which I did, via PM. I laid it all out in several lengthy PMs over the course of a couple of days, and she never once responded to anything I wrote.

I know she has no obligation to do so of course, but it was disappointing all the same, as I was interested in hearing her theory about how she thought JE could have possibly known the information he gave out that day. The reason I didn't post it here on the forum is because, as I mentioned to her, I'd already been there and done that back then, and wasn't looking to rehash the entire matter here.

Yup, I totally manipulated you into entering this thread with that title. BWAHAHA.

Okay, so, I ran the Challenge for three years, and I get how people who claim to be psychic operate. I've had readings from tons of psychics - both famous and not - and have been able to see through them the vast majority of the time, though I will say that John Oliver is impressive, and the only thing that causes me to discount him is an assumption that can neither be proven nor falsified.

I've also seen psychics do Vegas shows. In person, I mean. These include James Van Praagh and John Edward. Van Praagh was awful. I mean, he couldn't psychic his way out of a paper bag.

Edward, on the other hand, did one thing that was so solid that I was impressed. I can't figure out how he did it. I've mentioned this to skeptics before, and they are going with the "obviously that was a plant" route. I remain unconvinced. So, I'm going to tell you what happened. If you can, tell me how he did it.

I was standing in line for the show. The line for the show went out the theatre doors and into the casino proper - meaning that it was very loud, and that no one was around besides people perhaps fifteen feet away who were gambling at tables. While waiting to get into the show, I only spoke to one person. This man, who was around fifty five years old (I'm guessing) was named, let's say, Liam. (I am picking a name with roughly the same popularity as the real one.)

I spoke to Liam for about five minutes. He was from Canada, and was in town for only three days. He loved John Edward's television shows, and when he got into town and saw the billboards announcing that he would be giving a performance, Liam bought a ticket. He showed me the ticket. I was in the mid-range tier of tickets, and he was in the lowest tier. The ticket said he had paid cash - meaning that he was not comped in by a performer.

So far, three important things:

1) He was from out of town.
2) He bought his ticket spontaneously.
3) He paid cash for it.

We went inside, and Liam took his seat, and I took mine. I could see him from where I was sitting if I turned around. I should add - I was attending the show under a false name, and I was costumed in such a way that I was not recognizable as me. I had a fake backstory that I responded with any time anyone asked me what brought me to the show.

Continuing.

John Edward eventually came out on stage and began his readings. Most of what he said was unverifiable hullaballoo. Until...

He pointed toward the table behind me, where Liam was sitting, and said that he was getting the name 'Joshua'. I am again using a fake name of the same level of popularity. And I don't mean that he said he was getting a 'j' or the name 'Josh' or the feeling of a male presence. I mean that John Edward pointed at the table where Liam was sitting and said he was getting the name Joshua.

So Liam stood up. One of the ushers brought him a microphone so that he could communicate with Edward. Edward again said that he had gotten the name 'Joshua', and then said that there was something weird about it, because he had the sensation that the name was LIAM's. Then Edward paused for a moment. Liam had not said anything at this time. Edward said that, though Liam's name was Joshua, he had not introduced himself that way to the rest of his table. Edward then asked Joshua to hand the microphone over to someone else at the table, and then asked that person what Joshua had introduced himself as. The person said, "Liam."

Edward then asked Joshua to take out his driver's license and show it to everyone else at the table. The driver's license said that his name was Joshua Liam Smith.

So, important facts garnered there:

1) I know that Joshua introduced himself as Liam, because that is how he introduced himself to me. He never intimated in any way that it was his middle name.
2) Edward pulled, out of thin air, not only the guy's real name, but also the fact that the man wasn't using his real name.

Edward then did a reading for Liam. And it was a good reading - really good. At the very least, an excellent exercise in cold reading. But no amount of cold reading would yield something like that. I have seen Edward since, and he did not try the same trick again.

I have an audio recording of all of this, because I had a digital voice recorder hidden in my purse at the time and started recording before I even approached the theatre doors.

Now, because Edward gave me so much information, I have since been able to track down Joshua Liam. He is convinced that Edward is legit, and that he had no way of knowing the information other than psychic abilities. That, of course, means nothing, but I point it out because I want to note that I performed my due diligence. The guy really is from Canada. The guy's name really is Joshua Liam Smith (or something of that type, since I'm not giving real names).

A few other facts besides that:

If you pay cash for a ticket, you do not have to give your name to the box office. They don't even ask for it. That's how, while I was attending that show, my name was Emily. When you pick up a ticket, you do not have to present identification. Not only that, but the box office is run by the casino, not by the staff of the show. It is extraordinarily unlikely that, even if Edward's team asked, the casino would cough up a list of attendees.

Since I was able to get in touch with Liam, he told me that he did not speak to anyone on John Edward's staff. He did not, in fact, speak to anyone at length besides me.

All that said - how do you think he did it?

I will clarify with more information if anyone has questions. As I said - I have the whole show recorded.

RemieV,
I happened upon your thread...and by "happened upon" I mean I was thoroughly and deliberately searching for any and all threads about John Edward on this site! : )
Anyway, pretty amazing story, I agree. Although after a new refrigerator, a Valerie Harper connection, and a tooth in the pocket... I can't say I'm surprised! I am surprised, however, that you are asking people to explain how he did it... I KNOW how he did it and I'm willing to bet you do too! : )